Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 09-03-2010, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I personally think that he would have. The cave where the she-wolf suckled Romulus and Remus was kept as a kind of shrine on Palantine Hill.

Well, we may not be able to answer whether or not Ovid believed Romulus to be real. Based on statements from other educated Greeks, it seems to me that the educated class knew Romulus was a myth, and Ovid was certainly a member of that class and so I infer he knew he was writing a poetic biography of a mythical person. But there is no way to be sure.

So what do we make about Plutarch then? Did he believed Remus, Romulus, and Theseus to have been real as well? It seems very doubtful to me even though he writes about them in a matter of fact way.

Plutarch is excellent in that he often gives a range of the common beliefs, so helps give us a feel for what people thought. I'm not aware of him writing that he believed that Romulus and Remus didn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If ancient biographies were meant to exalt the words and deeds of the subject, then I would argue that the gospels are not ancient biographies, as that is not their purpose. Their purpose is Kerygma.

However, I think we are making too much of these categories. These are modern classifications, and just as in modern times, the lines between genre were not clear cut. New genre were being generated. The category of fiction as we know it was created at this time, as was the first alternate history. It was somewhat of a literary awakening.

Can you recommend any texts that discusses ancient fiction? It might be interesting to follow up on its evolution, if that period was the start of that type of writing.

aa5874 · 09-03-2010, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

....However, I think we are making too much of these categories. These are modern classifications, and just as in modern times, the lines between genre were not clear cut. New genre were being generated. The category of fiction as we know it was created at this time, as was the first alternate history. It was somewhat of a literary awakening.

We have the writings of Suetonius' "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" those biographies show without doubt that writers of antiquity were virtually no different from writers of today.

Examine excerpts about the early life of Tiberius from Suetonius' the "Life of Tiberius" a contemporary of the supposed Messiah called Jesus.

Quote:

5. Some have supposed that Tiberius was born at Fundi, on no better evidence than that his maternal grandmother was a native of that place, and that later a statue of Good Fortune was set up there by decree of the senate.

But according to the most numerous and trustworthy authorities, he was born at Rome, on the Palatine, the sixteenth day before the Kalends of December, in the consulship of Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Lucius Munatius Plancus (the former for the second time) while the war of Philippi was going on.

In fact it is so recorded both in the calendar and in the public gazette. Yet in spite of this some write that he was born in the preceding year, that of Hirtius and Pansa, and others in the following year, in the consulate of Servilius Isauricus and Lucius Antonius...

Now examine excerpts of the biography of the Messiah called Jesus from some unknown "gospel" writer.

Examine Matthew 1.18-20

Quote:

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost...

There is just no comparison. The Gospels were HOCUS-POCUS.

Suetonius demonstrated that writers of antiquity understood how to write biographies.

A little more on the death of Tiberius in "The Life of Tiberius" by Suetonius

Quote:

Meanwhile, having read in the proceedings of the senate that some of those under accusation, about whom he had written briefly, merely stating that they had been named by an informer, had been discharged without a hearing, he cried out in anger that he was held in contempt, and resolved to return to Capreae at any cost, since he would not risk any step except from his place of refuge.

Detained, however, by bad weather and the increasing violence of his illness, he died a little later in the villa of Lucullus, in the seventy-eighth year of his age and the twenty-third of his reign, on the seventeenth day before the Kalends of April, in the consulship of Gnaeus Acerronius Proculus and Gaius Pontius Nigrinus.

See http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...nius/12Caesars

And some more HOCUS-POCUS from another unknown gospel writer about the death of Jesus.

Mark 16.6

Quote:

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen, he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. ..

yin_sage · 09-04-2010, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Plutarch is excellent in that he often gives a range of the common beliefs, so helps give us a feel for what people thought. I'm not aware of him writing that he believed that Romulus and Remus didn't exist.

No, but there is even less evidence for them than there is for Jesus.

And Plutarch didn't seem bothered, did he?

aa5874 · 09-04-2010, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yin_sage

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Plutarch is excellent in that he often gives a range of the common beliefs, so helps give us a feel for what people thought. I'm not aware of him writing that he believed that Romulus and Remus didn't exist.

No, but there is even less evidence for them than there is for Jesus.

And Plutarch didn't seem bothered, did he?

The MJ/HJ argument is NOT just about existence it is REALLY about the nature of the existence of Jesus.

After all people BELIEVE ALLAH exists.

People BELIEVED Zeus did exist.

But what was the Nature of their existence or what was believed about their nature of existence?

Jesus believers and Christians BELIEVED and AGREED that Jesus existed as the offspring of the SPIRIT of God and a virgin, was equal to God, and was the Creator, and QUESTIONED his humanity.

mountainman · 09-04-2010, 01:42 AM

From WIKI's Origins of myth

Quote:

Euhemerism

One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events. According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods. ......... This theory is named "euhemerism" after the mythologist Euhemerus (c.320 BC), who suggested that the Greek gods developed from legends about human beings.

The Christ Myth appears to be slightly different in that the storytellers purport themselves to not just spread the stories via the oral tradition, but - from very early on [according to their story] - to preserve their stories by means of the Greek language. The earliest papyri fragments cited as evidence of this practice (outside the "Church Tradition") might appear to substantiate this practice. Most of these fragments belong to the codex technology. Christians were smart. They encoded special names in their "myths" (?) to represent "Jesus" and "Christ" and "Lord" etc etc etc. They were highly organised enough to have left evidence of a nearly universal use of these "nomina sacra" in the written form of their stories. It was the beginning of the Great Age of the Codex and the christian innovations in this high technology field allowed the othodox and gnostic storytellers to produce and the preserve the "Christ Myth" as competing authorities upon the subject.

GakuseiDon · 09-04-2010, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yin_sage

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Plutarch is excellent in that he often gives a range of the common beliefs, so helps give us a feel for what people thought. I'm not aware of him writing that he believed that Romulus and Remus didn't exist.

No, but there is even less evidence for them than there is for Jesus.

And Plutarch didn't seem bothered, did he?

No, he didn't. He was happy enough to quote earlier writers on their tales about Romulus, and leave it at that. This is how earlier writers seemed to view their myths and legends, and I guess it was out of pragmatism rather than a lack of skepticism. They were reliant on old sources and old traditions, and they knew they couldn't prove it one way or the other.

Steve Weiss · 09-04-2010, 03:59 AM

The presumption is that all religious books are fiction unless demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they are factual. They may be classified as historical fiction in that some places and characters are verifiable from other more objective sources, but the default position is fiction. Since religious texts that are fragmentary, not originals, and written by authors and at times unknowable, they should be set aside as myths, fables and legends. Belief in these works is purely arbitrary opinion and wishful thinking. There is nothing of substance to evaluate in these concoctions of the human imagination. They are prima facie fictional, and only people who enjoy tracing histories and examining the evolution of beliefs should waste any time on attempting to validate these ancient texts. The possibility of achieving certainty is zero.

yin_sage · 09-04-2010, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

The presumption is that all religious books are fiction unless demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they are factual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

They are prima facie fictional

Why is this so?

If I were to say, "Bricks should be presumed sentient until proven otherwise", you would say, "Why so?", because it is nothing more than an assertion I have made.

So I ask: "Why so, sir? Why should we imagine religious books to be fundamentally a different beast than everything else?"

Solo · 09-04-2010, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You don't understand the argument. It's not the apocalypse - how much of it was actually ex eventu in Mark's time - but the promise and the fulfilment of the parousia after the tribulations that auto-dates the gospel. It would have been totally crazy for Mark writing in 135CE to make Jesus promise supposedly in the reign of Tiberius, the Son of man collecting 'his elect from the ends of the earth'(13:27) and 'verily this generation shall not pass away till all these things be done' (13:30).

It seems to me you are taking this more literally than I believe an ancient audience that knew Jesus was an allegory would. For example, almost everyone recognized that Star Trek was making political statements about the 1960s and did not overanalyze it. ....only the trekker nerds obsessed over such incongruities, and the ancient world was much less analytical than we are.

What am I taking more literally ? What incogruities ? What the hell are you talking about, spamandham ?

Is Jesus, as a figure of Mark's (choose one: ) history/bio/allegory/mystery/salvation manual/ placed into the historical time frame of Tiberius ?

Don't overanalyze anything: kindly answer 'yes' or 'no' !

If the answer is 'no', we are done : have a great day !

If the answer is 'yes', do you agree that Jesus, as a figure of Mark's (choose one: ) history/bio/allegory/mystery/salvation manual/ placed into the historical time frame of Tiberius, when he (Jesus - not a commentator) says THIS GENERATION then Mark, as the author of the text, wishes to convey it is THE GENERATION OF TIBERIUS ?

Don't overanalyze anything: kindly answer 'yes' or 'no' !

If the answer is 'no', we are done : have a great day !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Because you see there is a difference between Mark's readers knowing the gospel was not really history, and you knowing that. You know what the difference was ? Tell me if you do !

I am promoting the idea that the original gospel author (probably not Mark if we accept the idea of Q) and his audience *knew* that Jesus was allegory. I have submitted as evidence of this the story of the withering of the fig tree. But that is just one bit of evidence among a vast quantity.

Thank you for sharing that. However you are not answering the question that was put to you. Evidently you do not know the answer. Very well then: the difference between your reading the scipt as allegory and Mark's eklektoi (Christ's elect) reading the script as allegory, is that they believed in the reality of the imminent collapse of heavens and the parousia.

However, you are free to believe they did not. In that case again, we're done: have a great day !

Quote:

Other evidence:

In Mark 13, Jesus says "let the reader understand" in regard to the 'the abomination that causes desolation'. Are we to believe that Mark's audience thought Jesus actually said "let the reader understand" in the middle of his monologue!? Would they have analyzed why Jesus would be saying such a thing. Of course not.

Straw man ! You are not going to bamboozle anyone here with any brains with the suggestion that the words intended by Mark to be read as Jesus' words included a parenthetical commentary by himself.

Quote:

It's obvious that Mark is talking directly to his audience, and his audience knows it. It isn't Jesus discussing the acts of Hadrian, it's Mark.

It is obvious that any writer is talking directly to his or her audience and the audience knows it. What's your point ?

Best,
Jiri

mountainman · 09-04-2010, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yin_sage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

The presumption is that all religious books are fiction unless demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they are factual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

They are prima facie fictional

Why is this so?

The evidence for the pious forgeries of religious books is plain, simple and mountainous. Evidence is not to be disregarded but rather explained. The simple explanation is that all religious books were not written by the flaming fingers of an angry god for the benefit of the human race, but by power mongering pious forgers who sought to control the minds of humanity, and to empty their pockets. The closer one gets to "Christian Origins" the greater amount of forgeries are recognised. Business is business, after all.

09-04-2010, 03:59 AM	#327
Steve Weiss Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Cape Town, South Africa Posts: 6,010	fact or fiction? The presumption is that all religious books are fiction unless demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that they are factual. They may be classified as historical fiction in that some places and characters are verifiable from other more objective sources, but the default position is fiction. Since religious texts that are fragmentary, not originals, and written by authors and at times unknowable, they should be set aside as myths, fables and legends. Belief in these works is purely arbitrary opinion and wishful thinking. There is nothing of substance to evaluate in these concoctions of the human imagination. They are prima facie fictional, and only people who enjoy tracing histories and examining the evolution of beliefs should waste any time on attempting to validate these ancient texts. The possibility of achieving certainty is zero.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.